Condemnation to the Mines in the Later Roman Empire

Mark Gustafson

The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 87, No. 4. (Oct., 1994), pp. 421-433.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-8160%28199410%2987%3A4%3C421%3ACTTMIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

The Harvard Theological Review is currently published by Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/cup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Sat May 5 00:36:06 2007
Condemnation to the Mines in the Later
Roman Empire*

Mark Gustafson
Indiana Universir?,

L actantius, in his shrill polemical pamphlet De mortibus persecutorum,

made the following observation while attacking his principal adversary,
the emperor Galerius: "There was no mild punishment with him, not is-
lands, not mines, not prisons; but fire, the cross, and wild beasts were daily
and ready at hand."' More than a sign of the times, it is also a measure of
his fury that Galerius could make exile, hard labor, and imprisonment seem
to be lenient sentences. While one must resist succumbing immediately to
credulity, one also must admit that even such hyperbole may have a kernel
of truth in it. Lactantius probably assumed-as did many others-that the
myriad adjustments to the complex relations between the church and the
empire, which were in the process of being engineered by Constantine and
his associates, would eliminate the need to inflict such punishments on
Christians for religious reasons.
Those "mild" penalties that Lactantius uses for vivid contrast may be
categorized as examples of the carceral method of punishment, which im-
prisons or detains persons in order to restrict their freedom of a ~ t i o n His
.~

'1 wish to thank Oliver Nicholson and Philip Sellew for their help at different stages in the
development of the view expressed in this article.
'Lactantius De mortibus persecutorum 22.2; Nulla poena penes eum levis, non insulae,
non carceres, non metalla, sed ignis, crux, ferae in illo erant cotidiana et facilia.
2Christopher Harding and Richard W. Ireland, Punishment: Rhetoric, Rule, and Practice
(LondonINew York: Routledge, 1989) 195-98.

HTR 87:4 ( 1 994) 421 -33

422 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

compressed reference to "mines" actually referred to a lifetime sentence

involving exile to a particular place, reduction to slavery, and hard labor in
metalla (either mines or q ~ a r r i e s ) Since
.~ early in the imperial period, this
penalty had been meted out-in theory but not always in practice-only to
lower-class persons and slave^.^ The bulk of the literary evidence for the
use of damnatio ad metalla in the Roman Empire tells of Christians pun-
ished in this manner during periods of state-sponsored p e r ~ e c u t i o n .This
~
practice, however, did not suddenly cease with the end of the Great Perse-
cution and the accession, in the following year, of Constantine, the first
emperor openly and actively sympathetic to ~ h r i s t i a n i t y .Rather,
~ a variety
of sources indicates that condemnation to mines and quarries for religious
offenses persisted at least through the fourth and fifth centuries. My pur-
pose in this article is to examine the literary record for that persistence,
together with legal, epigraphic, numismatic, and archaeological evidence
that serves as corroboration.
The pre-Constantinian references often state to which metalla the con-
demned were sent. These include mines of an unspecified type in Sardinia,7
N ~ m i d i a ,and
~ C i l i ~ i a copper
,~ mines in ~ o n t u sand
' ~ at Phaeno in Pales-
tine," and porphyry quarries in the Thebaid.12 The condemned, who are
sometimes named in the sources, included bishops, presbyters, deacons,
and numerous confessors (men, women, and children), many of whom were
beaten, tortured, mutilated in various ways, and killed.13 As other, non-
Christian sources describe, the conditions for those forced to work in the
mines were horribly harsh and degrading, and the experience often proved
fatal.14
Constantine eventually directed that Christians who had been condemned
to the mines were to be released, return home, and then resume their former
'Theodor Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1899) 949-51.
4Fergus Millar, "Condemnation to Hard Labour in the Roman Empire, from the Julio-
Claudians to Constantine," Papers of the British School at Rome 52 (1984) 125.
5The Christian evidence is collected in J. G. Davies, "Condemnation to the Mines: A
Neglected Chapter in the History of the Persecutions," University of Birmingham Historical
Journal 6 (1958) 99-107.
6The articles cited above in notes 4 and 5 create this mistaken impression, however unin-
tentionally, by drawing a line at Constantine's reign.
'Hippolytus Ref. 9.12.
8Cyprian Epistulae 76; 77; 78; 79.
9Eusebius De martyribus Palaestinae 8.13; 10.1.
'OEusebius Hist. eccl. 8.12.10.
I1EusebiusDe martyribus Palaestinae 7.1-2; 8.1; 13.1, 4-10.
I2Ibid. 8.1; 9.1.
I3See, for example, ibid. 7.3; 8.1.
I4Lucretius De rerum natura 6.808-15; Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 3.12-14.
On the truthfulness of the latter document, see J. G. Davies, "Diodorus Siculus, iii. 12-14; v.
36-8," JHS 75 (1955) 153. For a Christian source, see Cyprian Epistulae 76; 77.
 MARK GUSTAFSON 423

positions in society.15 Crimes other than that of being a Christian, however,

continued to elicit the penalty of damnatio a d metalla.16 Nevertheless,
Constantine's religious inclinations had an effect even on these offenders,
as indicated by the following edict:
If anyone has been condemned to a gladiatorial school or to a mine/
quarry according to the nature of the crimes in which he has been
caught, let there be no marking of his face, since the penalty of his
condemnation can be expressed by marking alone on both his hands
and his calves, so that his face, which has been shaped in the likeness
of the divine beauty, may not be defiled in any way."
Just as mining and the use of forced labor did not cease in the fourth
century,ls neither did religious dissent, as Constantine soon discovered.19
The new emperor craved unity and unanimity in the church and the empire,
and he strongly pursued this goal. As early as 312, he denied to those
whom he considered heretics the privileges granted to "true" C h r i ~ t i a n s ; ~ ~
and after his victory over Licinius in 324, Constantine legislated an end to
heresy.21 The state clearly found heretics and schismatics more distressing
than pagans.22 This trend continued into the next generation of leadership;
as the historian Sozomen recounted, Constantine's son, Constantius 11,
emperor in the East, was persuaded by Macedonius, the bishop of Constan-
tinople, to send four cohorts against the Novatianists in Paphlagonia, in
345. Constantius was led to believe that the mere appearance of military
force would be enough to make the heretics conform, but a battle ensued
15EusebiusHist. eccl. 9.1.7. See Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 159.
I6see, for example, Codex Theodosianus 1.5.3 (331 CE);4.8.8 (332 CE);9.18.1 (315 CE):
9.40.2 (315116 CE); 12.1.6 (318119 CE); 15.12.1 (325 CE).Crimes included such deeds as fraud
in a court case, complicity with a deserter, use of enormous vehicles, demolishing tombs,
kidnapping, and forcing one's daughter or female slave into prostitution.
"Codex Theodosianus 9.40.2 (315116 CE); Si quis in ludum fuerit vel in metallum pro
criminum deprehensorum qualitate damnatus, minime in eius facie scribatur, cum et in manibus
et in suris possit poena damnationis una scriptione comprehendi: quo facies, quae ad similitudinem
pulchritudinis caelestis est figurata, minime maculetur. Regarding tattooing, see C. P. Jones,
"Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,"JRomS 77 (1987) 139-55. See
also n. 41 below.
I8See J. C. Edmondson ("Mining in the Later Roman Empire and Beyond: Continuity or
Disruption?" JRomS 77 [I9891 84-102). who maintains that restructuring and reorganization
of production took place. Unfortunately, Edmondson limits his study to Iberia, Gaul, Britain,
and the Balkans, and to precious metals.
I9W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 141-68.
'O~usebius Hist. eccl. 10.5.16, 6.4, 7.2. See also Codex Theodosianus 16.5.1 (326 CE).
21Eusebius Vit. Const. 3.64. This, of course, was only an act of law, but "the relevance of
this ruling to ecclesiastical politics escaped no one" (Barnes, Constantine, 225).
"Peter Garnsey, "Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity," in W. J. Sheils, ed., Per-
secution and Toleration (Studies in Church History 21; Oxford: Blackwell, 1984) 19.
424 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and many were killed on both sides, including almost all of the soldiers.23
In the 350s, Constantius as sole ruler maintained his father's quest for
ecclesiastical and political unity and doctrinal uniformity. His methods had
an Arian tinge, however, which brought him into conflict with the mighty
bishop Athanasius of Alexandria and his supporters, including the western
bishops Lucifer of Cagliari and Hilary of poi tier^.^^
The first post-Constantinian literary evidence for the persistence of
damnatio a d metalla-at that time a punishment for being the wrong kind
of Christian-dates from this period. Obviously, the rhetorical dimensions
of this evidence must be given careful consideration. The references appear
in controversial works written by representatives of the ultimately victori-
ous, anti-Arian, "orthodox" point of view. They are thus tendentious in
various ways: in the information they omit as well as in the information
they include (which spans from minor elaboration and misrepresentation to
outright invention); in the choice of whom to blame; and in the blatant
adherence to the rhetorical formulations of earlier Christian literature, which
had been written in response to a non-Christian enemy. Athanasius, em-
battled champion of the Nicene position and key figure in the Arian con-
troversy, provided the most complete description of the persecution of
Christians in Alexandria in the latter 350s under C o n ~ t a n t i u s He
. ~ ~refers
twice to Nicene Christians condemned to mines and quarries. The first
reference is found in an account of persecutions at Alexandria in 356,
which were sponsored by the Arians:
They seized the subdeacon Eutychius, a man who had served the church
well, and, beating him nearly to death with a whip, they deemed him
worthy to be sent to a metallum, and not simply to any rnetallum, but
to the one in Phaeno, where even a condemned murderer is scarcely
able to live a few days.26
The ominous high coloring at the end of this passage surely points to the
notoriety that the copper mines in Phaeno had gained decades earlier.
Eusebius of Caesarea had recorded that large numbers of Christians were
sent there to do hard labor during the Great P e r s e c u t i ~ n . ~ ~
Z3SozomenHist. eccl. 4.2 1.1.
240nthe ecclesiastical politics of the 350s, see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993) 101-5 1.
25See Athanasius Apol. fug.; idem, Apol. Const.; and esp. idem, Historia Arianorum.
Z6AthanasiusHistoria Arianorum 60; ijpnctoav Edr6pov ~ ~ ~ O ~ L ~ K av6pa O V O VK ,u L ~ <
dnqp~70Bv7arij 'Earhqoiq?. aai noiqoavre< ~ i 7a < v67a zaupka15 i'aa 8avarq
~ a r a r o r r ~ v a4ciooav
t, ~ i pk~ahhov
< anoozahrjva~,rai pkzahhov o d oirrh65, ~ ahh'
~ i 70< 7 q <Q U L VE ~V ,~ UK U ~$ O V EK~U <
T U ~ I K C X ~ O ~ E V O 0hiyCX<
< ipkpaq p 0 y I < 66vara~
CqoaL.
Z7Seen. 11 above. There are other reports of those condemed to the mines at Phaeno at
roughly the same time; see Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum 15.3.7; Epiphanius
Haer. 68.3.6.
 MARK GUSTAFSON 425

Athanasius's second reference appears in an account of the banishment

in 357 of twenty-six bishops (whom he names), two presbyters, and forty
laypersons, "some of whom were sent to work in a stone quarry."28 Since
the identity of this quarry is not mentioned, but rather the author seems to
assume that the readers would know the name, it was almost certainly the
famous quarry at Mons Porphyrites in the eastern desert of Upper Egypt,
from which the Romans obtained their imperial purple porphyry. Eusebius
had referred earlier to this locale for condemned C h r i ~ t i a n s . ~ ~
Critical analysis of this evidence may begin with the observation that
Athanasius does not err on the side of frequency. His restraint is notewor-
thy, for these two references to metalla are part of a larger description of
persecution which provides many details of even harsher treatment of
Athanasius's supporters. Had Athanasius wished to insert more references
to such condemnation, he easily could have done so, for he frequently
referred to the deportation of Christians to areas where well-known mines
or quarries were located without specifying any additional punishment.30
Nor did he blame Constantius directly, evidently aware of the apparent and
understandable reluctance of the emperor to create martyr^.^' Rather, some
unnamed Arians are said to have done these deeds. The specific mention of
Phaeno in the first reference and the probable reference to Mons Porphyrites
in the second also bolster the validity of Athanasius's account. Eusebius's
De martyribus Palaestinae, a rich and easily exploitable source for lurid
details of persecution, might have provided a precedent for such a descrip-
tion. Athanasius, however, also provided specific names of the victims,
which is convincing, since some of them are mentioned elsewhere in his
works.32 There nevertheless remains the problem of determining the cred-
ibility of such evidence. This work is in large part a manifesto against
Athanasius's sworn enemy, Constantius, who drove Athanasius into flight-
whence he wrote this very
Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, Nicene partisan, and the most
boldly outspoken and intransigent opponent of Constantius in the West,
was in exile in various locations in the East between 355 and 361. During
that time he wrote six pamphlets which openly, vehemently, and relent-
lessly attacked the emperor. Lucifer was obsessed with the Council of Milan
in 355 and, as he saw it, the unjust treatment of Athanasius and his sup-
2 8 ~ t h a n a s i uHistoria
s Arianorum 72; ~ a r oi h q &iq k180upyiav ? r a p a 6 & 6 h ~ a 0 t .
29See n. 12 above.
30That Athanasius does not mention more instances of condemnation to the mines is im-
pressive, but is not enough proof to support an argument.
3'Even Lucifer of Cagliari, much to his chagrin, admitted that Constantius wished to avoid
killing his ecclesiastical opponents (Moriundum esse pro Deifilio 6.27-29).
32See Athanasius Historia Arianorum (PG 25 columns 779-80 nn. 66, 68).
330n Athanasius's Historia Arianorum, see Barnes, Athanasius, 126-32.
426 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

porters. Although two of his five references to damnatio a d metalla clearly

refer to events in Alexandria, they are otherwise nonspecific and generic;34
they have the ring of cliches, formulaic accusations that could easily be
applied to any emperor whom the Christians considered an enemy, espe-
cially pagan emperors of earlier days. One example may suffice here, in
which Lucifer, as always, addresses Constantius:
You plunder, you proscribe, you kill with the sword, you punish in
various ways, and you do not allow the bodies which you ordered torn
to pieces to be buried; you forbid acts of mercy, you have filled to
capacity all the mines and all the places of exile with those among us
who resist your cunning, and you do not cease relegating the innocent
and harassing them with hunger, thirst, and nakedness.35
After the initial shock of this exaggerated accusation has subsided, a slightly
more subtle feature becomes apparent: Lucifer has not placed the blame for
these acts of persecution on members of the local civil and military admin-
istration, as did Athanasius-who is far from loath to denounce Constantius.
Rather, Lucifer blamed the emperor himself.
Lucifer spoke of persecution and condemnation to the mines by-not
merely under-Constantius. The distinction is very important, and it viv-
idly underscores Lucifer's vituperative purposes. Four of his five references
to metalla were most likely written before the accounts of Athanasius cited
above, indicating that Lucifer was not dependent on the Historia Arianorum
for his i n f ~ r m a t i o n .If~ ~such punitive measures indeed were enforced in
Alexandria, he may have heard about them while in exile in Palestine or
Egypt. Lucifer clearly did not care to furnish the names of those sent to
metalla-if he even knew them-nor did he bother to tell exactly when or
under what particular circumstances these incidents occurred. The fact that
such punishments had happened in previous centuries and the reports that
these were happening again were sufficient justification for him to incor-
porate such tales in his invective.
In his last pamphlet, Lucifer stridently broadcasted that he would not
submit while Constantius attempted, by force, to impose unity and his own
brand of "orthodoxy" on the church. Lucifer instead took up the banner of

34LuciferDe regibus apostaricis 7.74-77; idem, De Athanasio 2.7.39-49; 18.57-66; 21.22-

25.
35Lucifer Moriundum esse pro Dei filio 3.16-21; spolias, proscribis, mactas gladio, varie
punis nec corpora, quae laniari sanxisti, sepeliri permittis, eleemosynam fieri prohibes, omnia
metalla omniaque loca, exilia vocari quae putabantur digna, nostro tuae calliditati resistentium
replesti numero; relegando insontes, fame, siti, nuditate vexando non desistis.
36For the chronology of Lucifer's works, see G . F. Diercks, Luciferi Calarirani Opera
Quae Supersunt (CChr Series Latina 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1978) xviii-xxv. Barnes states
(Athanasius, 126) that the Historia Arianorum was written in 357.
 MARK GUSTAFSON 427

martyrdom, the cause that had served the church so well and for so long
in opposition to the pagan state. Lucifer remembered that the church had
fought a long battle for freedom in a pagan state, and he refused to relin-
quish those gains without a fight.37 Lucifer thus adopted a framework that
was heavily reliant on the past, even if this meant taking occasional liber-
ties with the realities of his time period.38
Hilary of Poitiers was another prominent western bishop who resisted
Constantius's efforts. He echoed the words of Athanasius and Lucifer: "the
complaint is well known: on your order, the bishops whom no one dared
condemn have been deposed and now they have been tattooed on their
Catholic foreheads with the words 'condemned to the mines."'39 Again,
although the reference appears in the specific context of a discussion of
Athanasius and the church of Alexandria, it has a generic quality. With this
brief accusation Hilary showed more restraint, but he too was writing in
bitter opposition to the emperor. Thus the historical value of his words also
must be suspect. He took a middle ground between Athanasius and Lucifer,
appearing more willing than the former-but less than the latter-to blame
Constantius directly for condemning some bishops to the mines. Since his
In Constantium was written in 360, Hilary might have read Athanasius's
accounts, or even Lucifer's statements, or he might have obtained the infor-
mation through his contact with Egyptian bishops at the Council of Seleucia
in 359.40 In any case, Hilary put his own singular stamp on the ~ t o r y . ~ '
Whether or not Lucifer and Hilary came by their information indepen-
dently and "honestly," the problem still remains. Given our justifiable scep-
ticism, how can the evidence provided by Athanasius, and variously
reproduced by Lucifer and Hilary, be verified or denied altogether? The
obvious answer is to search for clues in nonliterary materials, which are not

37See the comments of Peter Brown, "Religious Dissent in the Later Roman Empire: The
Case of North Africa," History 46 (1961) 101; reprinted in idem, Religion and Society in rhe
Age of Saint Augustine (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) 259.
380n the role and importance of this peculiar, abrasive character, see Mark Gustafson,
"Lucifer of Cagliari and Constantius 11: A Study in Religious and Political Power in the Fourth
Century" (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota 1994) esp. 85-229.
39Hilary of Poitiers In Constantiurn 11.4-7; querella famosa est, iussos a te episcopos non
esse, quos condemnare nullus audebat, etiam nunc in ecclesiasticis frontibus scriptos metallicae
damnationis titulo recenseri.
40For the date of composition, see Andre Rocher, ed., Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Consrance
(SC 334; Paris: Cerf, 1987) 29-38; and the common sense of Timothy Barnes's review of
Rocher's text (JTS n.s. 29 [I9881 610). For Hilary's possible dependence on Athanasius, see
Rocher, Hilaire, 238 n. 12; for Hilary's possible dependence on Lucifer, see Rocher, Hilaire,
232 n. 18, 233 n. 23.
41As I shall discuss in a forthcoming article, "Inscripra in fronre: Penal Tattooing in Late
Antiquity," this passage is evidence for the continued practice of tattooing criminals on the
forehead, despite Constantine's ruling against it (Codex Theodosianus 9.40.2 [315/15 CE]).
428 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

subject to the same kind of manipulation. To begin with, the ruins of the
town of Phaeno (which is now called Fenan and is located approximately
twenty-eight miles south of the Dead Sea), site of the copper mines men-
tioned by Athanasius, date mostly to the third and fourth centuries. Some
tombstones marked with crosses, evidence of Christian burials, also re-
main; these may belong to those who died while working in the mines.42
In addition, many coins, which date from throughout the fourth century,
have been found in the area.43 This suggests that mining operations contin-
ued at Phaeno through the fourth century, and thus supports the pronounce-
ments of Athanasius and the others.
Testimony for the porphyry quarries in Upper Egypt is more precise.
Ceramic evidence shows that Mons Porphyrites (modern-day Gebel Abu
Dukhan) was in use in the third and fourth centuries as were the nearby
quarries at Mons C l a u d i a n u ~ .Ostraca
~~ excavated at the latter site also
indicate that the bulk of the work force there was free labor, supporting the
thesis that Athanasius's unnamed site was actually Mons P o r ~ h y r i t e s . ~ ~
Further evidence abounds. Numismatic support appears in the form of a
coin of Constantius 11, apparently dated between 350 and 361, precisely the
period of the literary sources.46Although the dating is inconclusive, a Greek
inscription is found on the porphyry tombstone of a Christian, John of
Hermopolis. The fourth-century remains of a Christian church and settle-
ment are located nearby.47 This ample material evidence, in combination
with the accounts of Eusebius and others," makes Athanasius's assertion
that Christian convicts were condemned to work in the porphyry quarries
at Mons Porphyrites in the midfourth century a persuasive one.

"F. M. Abel, Giographie d e la Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1938) 2. 41-
42; and esp. Helmut D. Kind, "Antike Kupfergewinnung zwischen Rotem und Totem Meer,"
ZDPV 81 (1965) 57.
"Kind ("Antike Kupfergewinnung," 72) provides the figure of one hundred and sixty-
seven coins from the years 270 through 400.
"Steven E. Sidebotham, Ronald E. Zitterkopf, and John A. Riley, "Survey of the 'Abu
Sha'ar-Nile Road," A J A 95 (1991) 575-76, 620. J. B. Ward-Perkins gives ("Quarrying in
Antiquity: Technology, Tradition and Social Change," Proceedings of the British Academy 57
[I9711 149 n. 38) the midfifth century as a possible date for the end of production. A. A.
Vasiliev ("Imperial Porphyry Sarcophagi in Constantinople," DOP 4 [I9481 3-26) indicated
that in the East, eight emperors and one empress were buried in porphyry sarcophagi between
337 and 457. Egypt was rich in minerals, as noted by Alan K. Bowman, Egypt after the
Pharaohs (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986) 15-16.
4%idebotham, "Survey," 577 n. 24.
46L. A. Tregenza, The Red Sea Mountains of Egypt (London: Oxford University Press,
1955) 123. This delightful book records a walking tour of the area. For more on the coin, see
David Meredith, "The Roman Remains in the Eastern Desert of Egypt," JEA 38 (1952) 108.
?'Sidebotham, "Survey," 576; Meredith, "Roman Remains," 108.
48EusebiusDe marryribus Palaestinae 8.1; Aristides Orationes 36; Josephus Bell. 6.41 8.
 MARK GUSTAFSON 429

Further literary evidence declares that condemnation of Christians to the

mines persisted beyond the reign of Constantius. The historian Theodoret,
although writing nearly a century after Athanasius and the others, attacked
Arianism in a similar fashion. He told of another persecution of orthodox
Christians by Arians in Alexandria, occurring during the reign of the Arian
emperor Valens in 373 and in the aftermath of the death of Athanasius.
Twenty-three monks were mourning the deportation of a group of nineteen
presbyters and deacons to Heliopolis and were thus deemed to be in vio-
lation of an official order against such display. After their arrest, incarcera-
tion, whipping, and torture, "they were sent to the metalla of Phaeno and
P r o c o n e s u ~ . "A~ ~short time later, Damasus, bishop of Rome, sent a deacon
to console those in Alexandria; this deacon was likewise abused and "sent
to the mines at Phaeno, which are copper mines."50 The story has the kind
of detail that invites ready belief, were it not for Theodoret's anti-Arian
polemic.
The metalla at Proconesus, the island of Marmara in the Propontis, were
marble quarries; the edict of Diocletian and Maximian in 302 mentioned
this as a location for condemned M a n i ~ h e e s These . ~ ~ metalla also provided
the white marble for Justinian's building program and thus were still in
operation in the sixth century.52 Proconesus, moreover, enjoyed a virtual
monopoly of the local Egyptian market, as is plain from the fact that all of
the more than thirty marble sarcophagi found in and near Alexandria are
sculpted from Proconesian marble.53 Theodoret's account of the condemna-
tion to the metalla at Proconesus thus seems to be securely supported.
Finally, Victor of Vita, who wrote a history of the persecution of catholics
in North Africa by the Vandal kings, Geiseric and Huneric (429-484), re-
ferred to Christians scattered "in the filthy sites of the metalla."54 Victor's
history, apparently written at the close of the persecution, has a familiar
ring. Not only were the Vandals Arians, but much like Lucifer and Hilary,
Victor described the situation in the language of pre-Constantinian perse-
cutions, with familiar references to confessors, their cries of Christianus

49Theodoret Hist. eccl. 4.22.26; zoiq Qevvqoiotq ~ a npo~ovy.rloiotq

i nape8iGovzo
petahhotq.
501bid., 4.22.28; toiq at& Q 6 v v ~ o o v~ apa80efivatp~zcihhotq.&oz18i z a i ) ~ azo6
ahr rob.
S'Collatio legum Mosaicarum er Romanarum 15.3.7. For date, see Barnes, Constanfine,
20.
5 2 J . B , Ward-Perkins, "Tripolitania and the Marble Trade," JRS 41 (1951) 103; idem,
"Quarrying," 148-49.
53J. B , Ward-Perkins, "Nicomedia and the Marble Trade," Papers of rhe British School ar
Rome 48 (1980) 45.
r Vita Historia persecurionis Africanae provinciae 5.19.
5 4 V i ~ t oof
430 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

sum, and martyrdom.55 Like Lucifer's and Hilary's references, Victor's as-
sertion is vague and provides little if any useful historical information. A
few questions arise: Is his mention of metalla merely a similar rhetorical
formulation? Were the metalla in North Africa still in operation, and were
there any condemned Christians in them? What does Victor mean by
metalla-mines or quarries?
More than two centuries earlier, in 258, the African bishop Cyprian
addressed a letter to some Christians working in a metallum in Numidia;
this was probably a gold or silver mine.56 There were three separate re-
sponses to Cyprian's letter, the last of which was written by at least three
bishops, together with presbyters and other Christians, "in the mine at
Sig~s."57Sigus was a town in central Numidia, about twenty-five miles
southeast of Cirta. Onyx quarries and lead, zinc, antimony, and copper
mines (with no sign of gold or silver) existed within a radius of twenty-five
miles, but only the copper mines seem to have been in operation in Roman
times.58 This evidence is inconclusive and of little help.
Victor, however, probably refers to metalla beyond the area of Sigus and
Cyprian's evidence. The Vandals occupied not only Numidia, but also
Byzacena, Tripolitania, and the Roman province of Africa.59 Beautiful yellow
"Numidian" marble was quarried at the Roman town of Simitthus (modern-
day Chemtou), located in the northwest corner of proconsular Africa, close
to the province of Numidia and the seat of a bishop. Like all quarries of
valuable stone, including those at Mons Porphyrites and Proconesus, these
were imperial property.60 Second-century inscriptions located here include
the names of imperial slaves and freedmen. One Christian inscription, written
on a rock face, indicates that a certain Diotimos was about to open a
quarry. It includes the chi-rho symbol and the letters INRI, which stand for
Iesus Nazarenus Rex ludaeorum. Diotimos is identifed as a libertus, that is,
a former slave, but otherwise nothing is known regarding his identity or the
date of the i n ~ c r i p t i o n .It~ ~is clear, however, that the quarries of Numidia
55John Moorhead, ed., Victor of Vita: History o f t h e Vandal Persecution (Translated Texts
for Historians 10; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1992) xiv.
56Cyprian Epistulae 76.2.2; auri et argenti domicilium, "the dwelling place of gold and
silver."
571bid., 79,
58Millar,"Condemnation," 140.
59Moorhead,Victor of Vita, ix.
60J. Clayton Fant, "The Roman Emperors in the Marble Business: Capitalists, Middlemen
or Philanthropists?" in Norman Herz and Marc Waelkens, eds., Classical Marble: Geochem-
istry, Technology, Trade (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988) 152.
6'Henri Leclercq, "Ad Metalla," DACL 1 (1907) 470. See also Gertrud Roder, "Numidian
Marble and Some of Its Specialties," in Herz and Waelkens, Classical Marble, 95. Marc
Waelkens, Paul De Paepe, and Luc Moens comment on the circumstances giving rise to an
inscription such as this: "Quarrying and trading marble has always been a risky business,
 MARK GUSTAFSON 431

were still producing marble as late as the early seventh century.62 If the
metalla to which Victor of Vita was referring included these quarries, then
once again the nonliterary evidence offers tantalizing corroboration of the
written word, even if the latter is blatantly biased.
The written references discussed above comprise the known literary
evidence for condemnation of Christians for religious reasons to mines and
quarries after the so-called Peace of the Church. All of these are found in
works by anti-Arian partisans and describe actions taken by Arian factions
against "orthodox," anti-Arian Christians; this is a clear warning to be
cautious in accepting these references as historical fact. Athanasius, Luci-
fer, and Hilary had been personally stung by their open opposition to
Constantius-all had been exiled. The references they make to metalla,
moreover, are found in predominantly polemical works, verbal, abusive
onslaughts of almost palpable rage. These fourth-century bishops inherited
the tradition of writing about the persecution of Christians by the pagan
state, a legacy of Tertullian, Eusebius, and Lactantius, among others. The
extent of their faithfulness to this tradition may be measured by the manner
in which they, in turn, utilized their inheritance with minimal adjustment.
New descriptions of torture and terror, essential components of the contem-
porary accounts of Constantius's supposedly systematic policy of persecu-
tion, read much the same as the old descriptions. There is no question that
these three bishops used vituperative license in their portrayals of the
emperor, and yet it is clear that behind their distortions lay a reality that
is-at least in some of its details-discernible and undeniable.
Athanasius presented enough detail in his accounts to inspire either a
circumspect confidence in his veracity or some admiration for his painstak-
ing deception. Lucifer's representations, in contrast, seem little more than
the paint-by-numbers variety, and Hilary's single reference does not offer
much further information. Theodoret, writing with the same anti-Arian per-
spective but against a different emperor, was specific enough in his refer-
ence to metalla that one may be prepared to believe him. Finally, with
regard to Victor of Vita's fleeting mention of Christians in metalla in the
fifth century in Africa, little can be said other than that it is the solitary
extant written evidence for its time and place, as far as I can tell. This mix
of literary references, however, when supplemented with a modicum of
economically as well as physically. . . . Therefore it does not surprise at all that names, images
and symbols of the divine protectors were carved on the quarry walls, and that small shrines
have been found inside the quarries. There is variety only in the divinity who was invoked"
("Patterns of Extraction and Production in the White Marble Quarries of the Mediterranean:
History, Present Problems and Prospects," in J. Clayton Fant, ed., Ancient Marble Quarrying
and Trade [BAR International Series 453; Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 19881
115).
62Ward-Perkins, "Quarrying," 149.
432 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

corroborating evidence of other varieties, assumes a unified character.

Despite all the manipulation and misrepresentation of events, there can be
no doubt that much contention existed between those emperors labelled
Arian and the anti-Arian resistance, as well as between the Vandals and the
local African Christians.
Thus it is a highly tenable conclusion that the long-standing practice of
condemning undesirables, criminals, and opponents-in this case, pro-Nicene,
anti-Arian activists-to work in mines and quarries continued in the fourth
century and beyond. The changes wrought by Constantine and his favorit-
ism toward Christianity highlighted religious controversy. Heresy topped
the new list of ecclesiastical concerns, a fact supported by the literary
sources discussed above. Were the persecutors always Arians, as these
sources would lead us to believe? Surely not. Were any "heretics" con-
demned to metalla? In 302, immediately before the period of present con-
cern, Diocletian ordered that prominent Manichees and their followers be
killed or-in the case of persons of status-be condemned to hard labor in
the mines of Phaeno or the quarries of P r o c o n e ~ u s Melitius,
.~~ the schis-
matic bishop of Lycopolis, was sent to the mines of Phaeno in or around
308.64 In the new Christian empire, the church and the state undoubtedly
continued to treat those considered heretics in a similar fashion. As we
know, however, history is written by the victors, and in this case, as usual,
they made a virtually clean sweep of evidence of such persecution.
Nevertheless, the legal codes leave some hints. In 386 an amnesty was
announced for those relegated to the mines, among others.65 It is possible
that some of these were heretics. In 407, an edict in the names of Arcadius
and Honorius proclaimed that any overseer or procurator who allowed her-
etics to congregate on a landed estate would be scourged and condemned to
perpetual labor in r n e t ~ l l a In
. ~ ~428, Theodosius I1 and Valentinian I11 put
forth an edict to suppress the "madness" of heretics, including Arians,
Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Sabbatians, Valentinians, Montanists,
Priscillianists, Phrygians, Marcianists, Borborians, Messalians, Euchites,
Donatists, Audians, Hydroparastatae, Tascodrogitae, Photinians, Paulians,
Marcellians, and Manichees. Nevertheless, this law likewise stipulated that
only the procurators who aided and abetted any of these proscribed hereti-
cal groups were to be sent to the mines.67 Beyond polemical distortions and

63Collatiolegum Mosaicarum et Romanarum 15.3.7.

64Epiphanius Haer. 68.3.6.

65ConstitutionesSirmondianae 8. Those accused of the five capital crimes were not granted

amnesty.
66Codex Theodosianus 16.5.40 (407 CE).
67Codex Theodosianus 16.5.65 (428 CE).
 MARK GUSTAFSON 433

fabrications, "judicial savagery" was increasing in the fourth century,@' and

heretics continued to be executed.69 In this atmosphere, many of those con-
demned probably accepted the fate of damnatio ad metalla with some re-
lief. In retrospect, the words of Lactantius at the outset of this article seem
prescient. He could not have foreseen, however, the nature and extent of
persecution to come. His words would have been cold comfort to those who
had received one of the milder sentences, including hard labor in mines and
quarries. The punishments continued, and the state-whether its emperor
was "orthodox" or "heretic"-still found reasons to persecute Christians for
their religious beliefs.

68See Ramsay MacMullen, "Judicial Savagery in the Roman Empire," Chiron 16 (1986)
43-62, reprinted in idem, Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (Princeton,
N J : Princeton University Press, 1990) 204-17.
69Codex Theodosianus 16.1.4 (386 CE);16.5.9 (382 CE);16.5.56 (410 CE).Execution also
was the penalty for hiding heretical writings (16.5.34.1 [398 CE])or for allowing heretics to
congregate (16.5.36.1 [399 CE]; 16.5.5 1 [410 CE]).